i have finally decided to ditch my trusty old Kurt Kinetic and get a smart trainer.
Wanted advice from people on which one to get:
Tacx Flux2
Tacx Neo2
Wahoo Kickr
Wahoo Kickr Core
Budget-wise, I am comfortable buying any of them - although obviously I would prefer to not spend more if i dont have to.
Specifically, what i am looking for:
Something that atleast equal to, or better than, my KK in terms of road feel (I am hoping better!) - am willing to pay more for a better road feel
Power that matches closely with Quarq, which is what I have on all my bikes
Works with minimal fuss with a Mac, Zwift and Trainerrroad - I really dont want to faff around with settings and troubleshooting and excessive calibrations and all the crap. Wanna get on the bike, turn stuff on and just ride
Nice to have: an ERG mode which doesnt destroy my cadence if i ease up for a second
Quiet would be nice
What I dont care about:
2000W vs 2500W. I am not doing sprint work on a trainer - just tempo to anaerobic (1’) intervals (covering say, 200-500W)
Super high gradient: meh, doesnt have any value to me. 14-15 degrees is sufficient
I have read the reviews and as per DC Rainmaker, the Kickr Core does everything the Kickr does. There is an issue transmitting HR and cadence, but presumably, if i use a Garmin headunit on my bike, that will also receive and record this data from my bike, so that isnt an issue. Similarly, the Flux2 seems to do everything that the Neo2 does, except for the pedal analysis and the higher flywheel weight.
For those of you who have compared the bigger brother to the smaller for either or both of these models, can you comment on the road feel?
And are there any usability “gotchas” or concerns i need to be worried about?
I’ve had a Kickr (several years ago) and Core (last year) as well as several other trainers and have a Neo2 (since early this year) and now think I’m done looking for the perfect trainer for me.
DC Rainmaker has written extensively on the subject but comparing Tacx and Wahoo is location dependent. In Europe you have always been able to get a better deal on Tacx units because its a European company (or at least was before Garmin bought it). In the USA Wahoo units are a better deal for similar tax/tariff/shipping reasons. For this alone reason I would always lean towards Tacx and Elite for the EU market and Wahoo or Cyclops for the US market.
An additional factor to consider is that the Kickr Core units had some significant teething issue when they first launched and its not clear that has all been sorted. None of the issues seem insurmountable for a company like Wahoo but as a consumer I would be pissed if I was sent 3-4 completely unusable units which is what has happened. And because the units haven’t been available for that long its hard to know if there are other wear and tear gremlins lurking under the surface. So its hard to recommend the Kickr Core at this point.
If you are really want to prioritise road feel I would get one of the cheaper units and spend the rest of the money on a rocker plate. A rocker plate has a much more dramatic effect on the feel than the difference between trainers. My current setup is a Tacx Flux plus a rocker plate and I while I have only toyed around on a friends kickr I prefer my setup.
If lowest cost, technically acceptable is your criteria, then the Core is impossible to beat on that list.
I have a 2016 KICKR. I just bought a Neo on a brief and great sale. The KICKR is pretty wonderful. Before that, I had a KK Road Machine, and I loved the all-around feel and smoothness of the KKRM. My KICKR has been every bit as good. (Well, maybe not quite as good, but still pretty excellent.) The power accuracy between my KICKR and PM pedals was less than 1% difference. I only got the Neo because of the consistent raves that it is the best and the killer price.
Something that at least equal to, or better than, my KK in terms of road feel (I am hoping better!) - am willing to pay more for a better road feel
Kickr or CORE. Flux units I’ve ridden (v1, S) feel laboured in their internal gearing/feel. They’re good for training, I wouldn’t compare them closely to ‘outside road feel’. The Neo1/2 is good. It’s not the ‘supreme being’ often claimed. It’s accurate, sure. The lack of flywheel weight does come with downsides. There’s ‘virtual tyre slip’ on simulated gradients when you accelerate hard. It can also feel harder at FTP or above due to the ‘virtual flywheel’. It’s difficult to explain. A lot of people who’ve ridden both notice it. The thru-axle adapter on the Neo1/2 is a bit of a faff too.
Power that matches closely with Quarq, which is what I have on all my bikes
This depends how accurate your Quraq is. Kickr, CORE, Neo, Flux when calibrated… all should be within spec.
Works with minimal fuss with a Mac, Zwift and Trainerrroad - I really dont want to faff around with settings and troubleshooting and excessive calibrations and all the crap. Wanna get on the bike, turn stuff on and just ride
Most of the time it’s the software, not the trainer that’s the faff. Kickr spindowns are not required as much as most people do. The Gen 1 Kickr needed them often due to the strain gauges, that advice is still commonly quoted. Depending on use performing a spindown every 3-6 months is sufficient.
Nice to have: an ERG mode which doesnt destroy my cadence if i ease up for a second
ERG will always punish those who don’t obey! Kickr/Core here too… the weighted flywheel means it has a little more forgiveness.
My Neo isn’t accurate at all, so I wouldn’t say that’s always a plus for it when purchasing. Seems any of these trainers can have accuracy issues.
Do you have any further details/data? It’s very uncommon to hear the Neo isn’t good on the power numbers. What’s your reference point?
I’ve never done detailed anaylsis, just running trainerroad/zwift at the same time with quarq on one and neo on the other. Generally when in the big ring the quarq will be reading 30-40w higher than the neo, when in small ring that will go down to as low as 10w difference. I’m pretty sure the quarq isn’t reading high as I’ve ridden a 4:42 IM bike split on 205w according to it.
EDIT: I had that backwards before, so read it again now if you were confused.
I’ve been using a Neo 2 for 2 months now after having used a Computrainer for 20 years. I like the Neo, the slight designed in rocking took a few rides to get used to but now I hardly notice it. It does seem to improve comfort in the saddle over longer rides. Be aware that because the Neo has a ‘virtual’ fly wheel, it can’t always anticipate large amounts of torque applied over very short periods of time. As such, there can be ‘virtual’ tire slip. In practice for me, I don’t even notice it, but it is there and acknowledge by Tacx. I don’t know how they’d ever fix it since they’d have to be able to anticipate when you’re going to hit the gas. I notice it most when I hop on and first pedal, that is, when the disc goes from stationary to moving. After that it’s a non issue for me. Simply put, since there’s no physical fly wheel, the magnetics take time to respond and create one. Under normal ERG workouts, I never see it. Haven’t noticed it yet in slope mode either, but then I’m not a sprinter (and don’t Zwift) so I’ll likely never experience it under real load. With regards to the special road feel (cobbles, boardwalk, dirt road etc), I found I didn’t like it while I demo’d the Tacx Desktop App, so I turned it off. To each their own. I believe it only works in the TDA and Zwift anyway. I did a ride up the Alpe d’Huez using the TDA and had my Favero Assioma Duo pedals recording at the same time. Overall, my pedals measured 4.1% higher than the Neo for the entire ride, though for some reason, the gap was larger during the flat lead in to the climb, and closer during the climb itself (2.8%). Just my $0.02 on accuracy. The new cadence sensor seems to work on average value, but the instantaneous reading bounces around a lot more than my Garmin sensor. All in all I’m happy with the purchase, especially at the price I got from a domestic U.S. retailer during a 1 day Flash sale.
I did a ride up the Alpe d’Huez using the TDA and had my Favero Assioma Duo pedals recording at the same time. Overall, my pedals measured 4.1% higher than the Neo for the entire ride, though for some reason, the gap was larger during the flat lead in to the climb, and closer during the climb itself (2.8%). Just my $0.02 on accuracy.
Interesting, were you having to shift to smaller gears for the climb or did you have it in erg?
Slope mode, so I shifted as needed. I’ll post the link below. I split the climb on my Garmin computer recorded the pedals, and did the same on the TDA and compared the numbers for the climb to the overall numbers. I think it’s visible too in the graph, but then my eyes are getting old. It’s pretty apparent where the climb begins, it’s around 19:30.
I did a ride up the Alpe d’Huez using the TDA and had my Favero Assioma Duo pedals recording at the same time. Overall, my pedals measured 4.1% higher than the Neo for the entire ride, though for some reason, the gap was larger during the flat lead in to the climb, and closer during the climb itself (2.8%). Just my $0.02 on accuracy.
My first thought was chainline differences when there’s variances like that. More data needed (if you like rabbit holes… and pulling hair out).
I’m gonna go with the Kickr Core (damn near silent, all the watts us mortals would ever need), and whatever money that is the difference between the Core and Neo2, spend it on the Kickr Climb.
I did a fair bit of testing between my two neos and two quarqs. Had the same, on the garmin’s seemed different to the zwift display. However in post analysis was very close after 10 min warmup. Before that there was a gap.
Despite the above the benefit of the neo is no calibration. Handy at 5am when you just want to get shot done.
Be aware that because the Neo has a ‘virtual’ fly wheel, it can’t always anticipate large amounts of torque applied over very short periods of time. As such, there can be ‘virtual’ tire slip. In practice for me, I don’t even notice it, but it is there and acknowledge by Tacx. I don’t know how they’d ever fix it since they’d have to be able to anticipate when you’re going to hit the gas. I notice it most when I hop on and first pedal, that is, when the disc goes from stationary to moving. After that it’s a non issue for me. Simply put, since there’s no physical fly wheel, the magnetics take time to respond and create one. Under normal ERG workouts, I never see it. Haven’t noticed it yet in slope mode either, .
Hey, thanks for that info.
How does the virtual flywheel feel like, when you ride? Does it feel like those horrible, horrible magnetic trainers from back when or does it feel more like a fluid trainer?
I can live with the slippage when I suddenly sprint (as i wont be doing that), but if i am ramping up from,say, 130-150W recovery to a 220-240W effort, or if there is a little variation in my power during an interval, does the trainer respond smoothly and in a manner that is similar to that on the road, or are there sudden jerks and stuff (all this in “slope” mode)?
I can try the Wahoo - i wont be able to try the Neo (the dealer is local but the trainer is on order only). So this is a bit of a concern for me.
Kickr, CORE, Neo, Flux when calibrated… all should be within spec.